Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error
Date: 2020-04-10 13:35:32
Message-ID: 20200410133532.GA2228@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:34:02AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:03 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 05:07:48PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > Yes but the difference is that we cannot disable PARSER or COPY by
> > > specifying options whereas we can do something like "VACUUM (FULL
> > > false) tbl" to disable FULL option. I might be misunderstanding the
> > > meaning of "specify" though.
> >
> > You have it right.
> >
> > We should fix the behavior, but change the error message for consistency with
> > that change, like so.
> >
>
> Okay, but I think the error message suggested by Robert "ERROR: VACUUM
> FULL cannot be performed in parallel" sounds better than what you have
> proposed. What do you think?

No problem. I think I was trying to make my text similar to that from
14a4f6f37.

I realized that I didn't sq!uash my last patch, so it didn't include the
functional change (which is maybe what Robert was referring to).

--
Justin

Attachment Content-Type Size
v3-0001-Allow-specifying-parallel-0-with-vacuum-full.patch text/x-diff 4.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2020-04-10 13:46:44 Re: doc review for parallel vacuum
Previous Message Jeremy Morton 2020-04-10 13:19:09 Re: Support for DATETIMEOFFSET